California Vows To Fight Trump's Cutting Funding of Sanctuary Cities

[Iceweasel]

let's end our war on drugs, first.

Nope. We have too many liberals as it is.

yet, you want to lower taxes.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

All the tax money goes to drug enforcement? No one takes liberals seriously, period.

 

[whitehall]

What does the phrase "vow to fight" really mean? Is it just a throwaway line that indicates annoyance or is it a promise of violence? Even a pop-educated people understand that the states do not have power over the federal government. That issue was settled with the Civil War. Since the Trump administration has a majority in both houses of congress the phrase "vow to fight" is as meaningless as the rants of quasi psychotic Hollywood stars. .

 

[BluesLegend]

God forbid Trump defends innocent American citizens, enforces our immigration laws, and holds California accountable for breaking them.

 

[Weatherman2020]

we legalized pot and can consider lowering personal income tax rates.

California lower taxes!?

sure; once pot revenue starts coming in.

$1.6 BILLION deficit............

one billion in projected tax revenue from pot.

Sure. Like the projected 8% earnings Calif thinks it will get.

 

[Weatherman2020]

What does the phrase "vow to fight" really mean? Is it just a throwaway line that indicates annoyance or is it a promise of violence? Even a pop-educated people understand that the states do not have power over the federal government. That issue was settled with the Civil War. Since the Trump administration has a majority in both houses of congress the phrase "vow to fight" is as meaningless as the rants of quasi psychotic Hollywood stars. .

It means they will stop eating kale until Trump gives in.

 

[kaz]

What does the phrase "vow to fight" really mean? Is it just a throwaway line that indicates annoyance or is it a promise of violence? Even a pop-educated people understand that the states do not have power over the federal government. That issue was settled with the Civil War. Since the Trump administration has a majority in both houses of congress the phrase "vow to fight" is as meaningless as the rants of quasi psychotic Hollywood stars. .

It means they will stop eating kale until Trump gives in.

It explains all the constipation on the left ...

 

[easyt65]

What does the phrase "vow to fight" really mean? Is it just a throwaway line that indicates annoyance or is it a promise of violence? Even a pop-educated people understand that the states do not have power over the federal government. That issue was settled with the Civil War. Since the Trump administration has a majority in both houses of congress the phrase "vow to fight" is as meaningless as the rants of quasi psychotic Hollywood stars. .

'Losers' vow to 'fight'. Winners vow to 'WIN'...then do what needs to be done to do so. Those without power / leverage also vow to fight, especially when they know they are not in the right and are going to lose - they do so to 'save face'.

 

[Eaglewings]

Interesting such a loving man calling others evil.....

Good men HATE evil.

It's what we do.

You would have gladly been a National Socialist if it benefited you -- Just like every other dimocrap in here.

Your main benefactor, the biggest donor to the dimocrap scum party is a Nazi Collaborator...... George Soros.

Back in the day, your longest serving Senator was a Grand Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan...... An organization created by Nathan Bedford Forrest NOT to subjugate Blacks but to murder and intimidate Republicans...

dimocraps are evil scum

And I hate evil scum

You? You may very well just be stupid. Don't know, don't care

But you defend and support evil. So even if you aren't evil yourself, you are just as guilty as they are

Will you please show a link that Soro's paid these women?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Interesting such a loving man calling others evil.....

Good men HATE evil.

It's what we do.

You would have gladly been a National Socialist if it benefited you -- Just like every other dimocrap in here.

Your main benefactor, the biggest donor to the dimocrap scum party is a Nazi Collaborator...... George Soros.

Back in the day, your longest serving Senator was a Grand Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan...... An organization created by Nathan Bedford Forrest NOT to subjugate Blacks but to murder and intimidate Republicans...

dimocraps are evil scum

And I hate evil scum

You? You may very well just be stupid. Don't know, don't care

But you defend and support evil. So even if you aren't evil yourself, you are just as guilty as they are

Will you please show a link that Soro's paid these women?

From that right wing rag known as the NY Times.

Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington

 

[Edgetho]

Mexico Got More Money From Remittances Than from Oil Revenues in 2015

 

[Iceweasel]

Interesting such a loving man calling others evil.....

Good men HATE evil.

It's what we do.

You would have gladly been a National Socialist if it benefited you -- Just like every other dimocrap in here.

Your main benefactor, the biggest donor to the dimocrap scum party is a Nazi Collaborator...... George Soros.

Back in the day, your longest serving Senator was a Grand Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan...... An organization created by Nathan Bedford Forrest NOT to subjugate Blacks but to murder and intimidate Republicans...

dimocraps are evil scum

And I hate evil scum

You? You may very well just be stupid. Don't know, don't care

But you defend and support evil. So even if you aren't evil yourself, you are just as guilty as they are

Will you please show a link that Soro's paid these women?

From that right wing rag known as the NY Times.

Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington

The ***** hats alone had to cost a fortune.

 

[defcon4]

Interesting such a loving man calling others evil.....

Good men HATE evil.

It's what we do.

You would have gladly been a National Socialist if it benefited you -- Just like every other dimocrap in here.

Your main benefactor, the biggest donor to the dimocrap scum party is a Nazi Collaborator...... George Soros.

Back in the day, your longest serving Senator was a Grand Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan...... An organization created by Nathan Bedford Forrest NOT to subjugate Blacks but to murder and intimidate Republicans...

dimocraps are evil scum

And I hate evil scum

You? You may very well just be stupid. Don't know, don't care

But you defend and support evil. So even if you aren't evil yourself, you are just as guilty as they are

Will you please show a link that Soro's paid these women?

Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington

 

[Edgetho]

From that right wing rag known as the NY Times.

Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington

dimocraps are lying, ignorant scum. ALL of them. The young, the old, the short and the tall. The large, the fat and the small........ Lying, ignorant scum. Every.Last.One.Of.Them.

Remember that and you know everything there is to know about them

 

[easyt65]

Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington

No direct funding link to Soros....'direct' link....

 

[candycorn]

If Congress allocated the money and the executive signed off on it….I’m not certain how the executive can come back years later and say, “no”.

But hey, that was the system before the GOP took over; you know, a Republic.

Think about what you just said. We are talking about this year's money and you're saying it was agreed to by a past congress and a past President. So?

The prior owners of your house agreed to have your living room painted bright orange, so you had no right to change the color, you're going to have to pant it back to the correct color

Using your example. If the agreement worked out in 2016 is that the feds will pay to have the house painted again in 2018 and money was promised by the Congress and signed off by the Executive…cutting the funds off in 2017 seems to be usurping Congressional Authority.

 

[Weatherman2020]

If Congress allocated the money and the executive signed off on it….I’m not certain how the executive can come back years later and say, “no”.

But hey, that was the system before the GOP took over; you know, a Republic.

Think about what you just said. We are talking about this year's money and you're saying it was agreed to by a past congress and a past President. So?

The prior owners of your house agreed to have your living room painted bright orange, so you had no right to change the color, you're going to have to pant it back to the correct color

Using your example. If the agreement worked out in 2016 is that the feds will pay to have the house painted again in 2018 and money was promised by the Congress and signed off by the Executive…cutting the funds off in 2017 seems to be usurping Congressional Authority.

Congress has no power over the next Congress.
It's just a game they play by cutting funds in future years and saying they are reducing spending when in fact the next years Congress can do whatever they please.

 

[kaz]

If Congress allocated the money and the executive signed off on it….I’m not certain how the executive can come back years later and say, “no”.

But hey, that was the system before the GOP took over; you know, a Republic.

Think about what you just said. We are talking about this year's money and you're saying it was agreed to by a past congress and a past President. So?

The prior owners of your house agreed to have your living room painted bright orange, so you had no right to change the color, you're going to have to pant it back to the correct color

Using your example. If the agreement worked out in 2016 is that the feds will pay to have the house painted again in 2018 and money was promised by the Congress and signed off by the Executive…cutting the funds off in 2017 seems to be usurping Congressional Authority.

The prior owners didn't leave you any money to paint your living room orange. They just told you to do it, so no, it means shit

 

[candycorn]

If Congress allocated the money and the executive signed off on it….I’m not certain how the executive can come back years later and say, “no”.

But hey, that was the system before the GOP took over; you know, a Republic.

Think about what you just said. We are talking about this year's money and you're saying it was agreed to by a past congress and a past President. So?

The prior owners of your house agreed to have your living room painted bright orange, so you had no right to change the color, you're going to have to pant it back to the correct color

Using your example. If the agreement worked out in 2016 is that the feds will pay to have the house painted again in 2018 and money was promised by the Congress and signed off by the Executive…cutting the funds off in 2017 seems to be usurping Congressional Authority.

Congress has no power over the next Congress.
It's just a game they play by cutting funds in future years and saying they are reducing spending when in fact the next years Congress can do whatever they please.

Yes…Congress can.

The executive? No. The executive can not sign the budget for next FY but stopping money in the pipeline? No.

 

[kaz]

If Congress allocated the money and the executive signed off on it….I’m not certain how the executive can come back years later and say, “no”.

But hey, that was the system before the GOP took over; you know, a Republic.

Think about what you just said. We are talking about this year's money and you're saying it was agreed to by a past congress and a past President. So?

The prior owners of your house agreed to have your living room painted bright orange, so you had no right to change the color, you're going to have to pant it back to the correct color

Using your example. If the agreement worked out in 2016 is that the feds will pay to have the house painted again in 2018 and money was promised by the Congress and signed off by the Executive…cutting the funds off in 2017 seems to be usurping Congressional Authority.

Congress has no power over the next Congress.
It's just a game they play by cutting funds in future years and saying they are reducing spending when in fact the next years Congress can do whatever they please.

She gets that when Republican congresses pass budgets, then she suddenly doesn't when Democrat congresses do

 

[candycorn]

For the record, I’m against SCs too.